23. Stadiums, Beaches, Country Clubs

23. Stadiums, Beaches, Country Clubs - 23 Stadiums Beaches...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: 23. Stadiums, Beaches, Country Clubs: Sport and the Modern Landscape Sport in the Modern World Sport Space   Think about the places you play, watch and consume sports.   Our two examples:     Golf Stadia   Contrast one space with another.   Distinctive practices that have an architectural signature.   Particular inclusions or exclusions.   Environmental or ecological impacts.   How the space is produced. Golf and its Spaces   Golf, as the most intensive and extensive of all sports in playing space, is a very good demonstrator.   It concentrates ecological, political, and social power and discipline.   Think about what is necessary to produce and maintain a golf course. Political Significance   Golf courses (and other arenas) are typically built proximate to large populations, yet require large amounts of land.   Building a golf course (or arena) thus requires a certain amount of economic and political power.     Elite country clubs and golf courses commonly include local political elites and business leaders. (Unlike, say, the YMCA). Use of ‘eminent domain’, as in Arlington Texas, Rangers’ stadium.   Commonly, land near urban centers available for building or extending golf courses needs to be cheaper or politically accessible or both.   Or, courses can be built in places where land is available, and access can be controlled by price and other kinds of regulation:       Resorts, country clubs Offshore (e.g. Hawai’i, Caribbean) Private, ‘gated’, communities. Public and Private   Most arenas and large sports facilities have ‘special’ relationships with the public sector.   Arenas are often publicly funded or subsidized, receive tax breaks or special status.   Certain leagues are exempt from competition (cf. 13 soccer clubs in London).   But their ownership is rarely decisively public.   Tax breaks, funding and other subsidies undergird the economies of professional and other sport. Golf and ‘Natives’   In North America, the building of golf courses has had a particularly strong impact on native lands:   In many cases forcing the issue in controversies over land ownership.   Digging up burial grounds.   Juxtaposing wealth with poverty.   Targeting the relatively small quantity of native lands near urban centers. Michael Campbell, Ngati Ruanui, Ngati Rauru Raglan Golf Course, New Zealand   A large piece of Maori (indigenous people of New Zealand) land was taken for a WW2 airfield.   In 1969, instead of being returned to Maori, 69 acres was given and made into the Raglan golf course.   Protests demanding the return of the land, focusing on the golf course lead to mass arrests in 1978.   Courts find the land‐taking illegal, and land is returned. Eva Rickard, Tainui Awhito, with Venn Young, Minister of Lands Yet Another Golf Course, O’ahu, Hawai’i   Hawaii has over 70 golf courses, with more built almost every year.   Most are private, and connected with the corporate tourist industry.   Native Hawaiian lands have been massively appropriated by state and federal government, corporations and the U.S. military (Hawaii has over 120 military installations: 25% of public lands are controlled by the military).   Native Hawaiian ownership of lands has gone from nearly 100% a little over 100 years ago, to Oka Crisis   Began when the town of Oka decided to extend a private golf club to 18 holes in 1989.   The neighboring Mohawk community of Kanesatake had long contested the ownership of the golf club, and the expansion led to a blockade of the golf club.   In July the mayor of Oka ordered the blockade be removed. Oka Crisis   Began with the attempted removal of the blockade.   Lasted from July to September 1990.   Supported by an occupation of a key bridge in Quebec City.   Led to a review and alteration in federal policy. July 11, 1990 Reoccupation of Kanesatake Other Opponents of Golf   Many environmental, social and political groups strongly oppose particular courses or golf in general.   Other political and social struggles over golf:     Ann Arbor Venezuela   China Daily: ‘Golf, widely regarded as a rich man’s game, is gobbling up the poor man’s land in China.’ (Dec 1, 2009)   With only 1.4 mu of farmland per capita in China, it is "quite ridiculous" to build a golf course that occupies 40 to 50 hectares of land and uses 3,000 cu m of water every day just for grass maintenance. China Daily Augusta   “… the little boy is driving it well … pat him on the back and say congratulations and tell him not to serve fried chicken next year … or collard greens or whatever the hell they serve…” ‘Fuzzy’ Zoeller, 1997 Golf and Exclusivity   Part of the attraction of golf as a social activity, has long been its class, gender and racial exclusivity.   This is partly ‘natural’, stemming from the resource consumption and expense of producing and maintaining a golf course.   It is also an artifact of golf cultures, which value, produce and maintain exclusive spaces.   Most elite clubs still have very small non‐white memberships.   Most also have view—or no women members (e.g. Augusta). Lee Elder, 1975 Clearview Public Golf Course, East Canton, OH History of Stadia   Key continuity of stadium architecture over millenia: a focus on ocularity.   But key changes:         In location. In function. In embodied practices. Each of these has led to changes in architecture and design. Twentieth Century Innovations   Corporate boxes and accommodations.   Television and media accommodation.   ‘All weather’ facilities.   Advertising.   Parking.   Elaborate concessions and commodity sales.   Different kinds of spectating: jumbotrons, giveaways, cheerleading, half‐time shows.   What changes in the nature, meaning and practice of sport do each of these point to? Ferry Field after Press Box Addition Stadiums as Folk Spaces   In the early part of the 20th century, many stadiums were owned by participants, small clubs and fan bases.   They were unruly and poorly governed ‘folk spaces’: male dominated and attended by particular segments or classes. ‘The Kop’, named for Spion Kop, a battle In the South African ‘Boer’ War. Disciplining Stadia   Stadiums show us how well the application of power has altered   Think of all the elements of a stadium that are controlled, either directly by rules, or by custom:   Field and conditions of play.   Movement (not on field, not in the wrong sections).   Dress   Conduct (standing, sitting, sitting in your seat …).   Consumption: purchasing of food, no alcohol, music.   Contrast this with other stadium experiences. ‘Reclaim the Kop’   Merseyside people, ‘Scousers’, have a distinctive regional, gendered, class‐based identity.   This is fervently on display at Anfield, home of Liverpool, and Everton, at Goodison Park, both in Liverpool.   The original ‘The Kop’ was closed in 1994, and reconstructed.   There is now a movement to reclaim the culture and practices of ‘The Kop’. Panorama 1964 Stadia as Shapers of Sentiment   Stadiums concentrate attention and sentiment in certain ways.     They shape public behaviors and symbolism: in ways with which we might agree, or not. Hooliganism, racism, sexism, ultra‐ nationalism, fascism all survive in   In conjuncture with living cultures, they produce ‘codes of conduct’.   Yet modern stadiums are carefully designed and controlled environments, where people are subject to disciplines of power.   Stadiums are safer, more controlled and disciplined when people conform as ‘docile bodies’. Different Stadia, and Sentiments Lazio Inter Milan Paolo de Canio Inter Milan supporter and supported, Subcommandante Marcos Shaping a New Sport Public   In the ‘Global North’ alterations with regard to the practices of:   Class: away from single class bodies to differentiations in expense.   Gender: making amenities for women.   Race: away from overt segregations in race.   Age: making stadiums safe for children and families. Stadia and Community   Many argue that stadiums are economically beneficial for communities: there is no evidence for this.       ‘Few fields of economic research offer virtual unanimity of findings. Yet, independent work on the economic impact of stadiums and arenas has uniformly found that there is no statistically significant positive correlation between sports facility construction and economic development.’ Joyce Hogi: ‘The Yankees have been here for almost a century, see how they have made the South Bronx prosper.’ Though there are other arguments for having a sports team:       Quality of life City status Symbolism/Identity ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 05/25/2011 for the course HIST 303 taught by Professor Salesa during the Fall '10 term at University of Michigan.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online